AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("FIO") is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala/Camp Office at Sialkot.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for declaration, rendition of accounts along with permanent injunction praying herein that the plaintiff is only entitled to pay the principal amount which she has already paid and that there is nothing due to the Respondent. Further that she is not liable to pay appreciation charges. The Appellant filed its application for leave to defend the suit ("PLA") against which reply was filed by the Respondent. It is stated in the PLA that the Respondent in terms of the agreement is bound to pay the appreciation charges as per the State Bank Regulations. The Banking Court on the first date of hearing dismissed the PLA vide the impugned order dated 16.3.2016 and found that the Appellant is not entitled to claim appreciation charges from the Respondent and the suit of the Respondent -was decreed in her favour.
3. Learned , counsel for the Appellant argued that the suit could not have been decreed on the first hearing. It was a suit for rendition of accounts in which the Respondent had also challenged appreciation charges. Learned counsel further argued that the terms and conditions of the finance facility are in accordance with law and were agreed to by the Respondent. Therefore she could not have required anything contrary to the contractual terms. Furthermore there was nothing before the court on the basis of which it gave the finding that the charging of appreciation charges are illegal and against the State Bank Regulations.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the Respondent has paid the principal amount and is not liable to pay appreciation charges which are contrary to law. Learned counsel further argued that the Appellant cannot charge excessive markup or make money at the cost of the Respondent. Further that the Respondent is liable to pay the principal amount but not liable to pay any other charges.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record. In terms of the original record, we note that the suit for declaration, rendition of accounts along with permanent injunction was filed on 12:12.2011. PLA was filed on 17.3.2012. The suit was heard by the Judge Banking Court on 16.3.2016 on which date the court dismissed the PLA and decreed the suit. The prayer of the Respondent in the suit was that she is only entitled to pay the principal amount which she has already paid and that there is nothing due from her. Further that she is not liable to pay appreciation charges. The Banking Court vide the impugned order dated 16.3.2016 allowed this prayer without considering the arguments raised by the Appellant in the PLA being that it was entitled to charge appreciation charges as per its requirements and that she agreed to the same in the contract and that the said charges were not in violation of any State Bank Regulations. We also note that there was nothing before the court on the basis of which it concluded that appreciation charges are contrary to the State Bank Regulations.
6. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala/Camp Office at Sialkot is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Banking Court before whom the PLA shall be deemed pending and is directed to decide the same within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, after hearing all the necessary parties, in accordance with law.